I am senior fellow for environment policy at the Heartland Institute and managing editor of Environment & Climate News. I write about energy and environment issues, frequently focusing on global warming. I have presented environmental analysis on CNN, CNN Headline News, CBS Evening News, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, and several national radio programs. My environmental analysis has been published in virtually every major newspaper in the United States. I studied atmospheric science and majored in government at Dartmouth College. I obtained my Juris Doctorate from Syracuse University.

Shock Poll: Meteorologists Are Global Warming Skeptics

A recent survey of American Meteorological Society members shows meteorologists are skeptical that humans are causing a global warming crisis. The survey confirms what many scientists have been reporting for years; the politically focused bureaucratic leadership of many science organizations is severely out of touch with the scientists themselves regarding global warming issues.

According to American Meteorological Society (AMS) data, 89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming.

This sharp contrast between the large majority of meteorologists who believe global warming is happening and the modest minority who are nevertheless very worried about it is consistent with other scientist surveys. This contrast exposes global warming alarmists who assert that 97% of the world’s scientists agree humans are causing a global warming crisis simply because these scientists believe global warming is occurring. However, as this and other scientist surveys show, believing that some warming is occurring is not the same as believing humans are causing a worrisome crisis.

Other questions solidified the meteorologists’ skepticism about humans creating a global warming crisis. For example, among those meteorologists who believe global warming is happening, only a modest majority (59%) believe humans are the primary cause. More importantly, only 38% of respondents who believe global warming is occurring say it will be very harmful during the next 100 years.

With substantially fewer than half of meteorologists very worried about global warming or expecting substantial harm during the next 100 years, one has to wonder why environmental activist groups are sowing the seeds of global warming panic. Does anyone really expect our economy to be powered 100 years from now by the same energy sources we use today? Why immediately, severely, and permanently punish our economy with costly global warming restrictions when technological advances and the free market will likely address any such global warming concerns much more efficiently, economically and effectively?

In another line of survey questions, 53% of respondents believe there is conflict among AMS members regarding the topic of global warming. Only 33% believe there is no conflict. Another 15% were not sure. These results provide strong refutation to the assertion that “the debate is over.”

Interestingly, only 26% of respondents said the conflict among AMS members is unproductive.

Overall, the survey of AMS scientists paints a very different picture than the official AMS Information Statement on Climate Change. Drafted by the AMS bureaucracy, the Information Statement leaves readers with the impression that AMS meteorologists have few doubts about humans creating a global warming crisis. The Information Statement indicates quite strongly that humans are the primary driver of global temperatures and the consequences are and will continue to be quite severe. Compare the bureaucracy’s Information Statement with the survey results of the AMS scientists themselves.

Scientists who have attended the Heartland Institute’s annual International Conference on Climate Change report the same disconnect throughout their various science organizations; only a minority of scientists believes humans are causing a global warming crisis, yet the non-scientist bureaucracies publish position statements that contradict what the scientists themselves believe. Few, if any, of these organizations actually poll their members before publishing a position statement. Within this context of few actual scientist surveys, the AMS survey results are very powerful.

In contrast to the AMS survey, where all respondents are AMS meteorologists, a majority have Ph.D.s and fully 80% have a Ph.D. or Masters Degree, position statements by organizational bureaucracies carry little scientific weight. For example, a position statement recently published by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and frequently cited as the “definitive” indication of scientific consensus on global warming was authored by a mere 23 persons. Of those 23 persons, only five had Ph.D.s in a field closely related to climate science, an equal number (5) were staffers for environmental activist groups, two were politicians, one was the EPA general counsel under the Clinton administration and 19 of the 23 had already spoken out on behalf of global warming alarmism prior to being chosen for the panel. Clearly the scientific weight of the NAS statement pales in comparison to the AMS meteorologist survey.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

Let’s go to a relatively closed environment with some big but limited regenerative systems like Lucas Oil Field. Let’s light some oil, gas, coal, and wood on fire between the 45s. We probably get some particulates, some floating chemicals, and some heat, but nothing to worry about, Now let’s expand that to between the 40s, between the 20s, etc. (Here’s a test: would you have your kids to live in that stadium? Or near the coal plant?) The question to me on man-made causes is: How can we NOT be affecting the balance at some point ? And in any case, the argument for moving off oil is a temporal one – and I expect us to have more vision than we are currently showing. The driver should be one of future competitiveness and national security. The economies who move towards lower consumption and alternative sources will be the ones who become more competitive because they will be spending less on fuel in 25 years (including defending oil fields and shipping lanes), will be less susceptible to shocks, and have lower costs. If that costs us a half point of GDP growth now, so be it. And, take a look at how the US consumer and economy react when they think oil prices will be higher (we have 4-5 examples over the past 3 decades) …. pretty impressive how fast they react! You should have faith in that, at least.

Way to go on misrepresenting the results. Fortunately the provided link showed a different picture. 89% of the respondents said that global warming was occurring. Of that very substantial MAJORITY, 59% (again, a majority) stated that human activities were the primary cause, with another 11% stating that human and natural causes were the primary causes, so again a majority there. 38% of the respondents said the effects of global warming would be very harmful and ANOTHER 38% said it would be somewhat harmful, so that makes 76% stating that it will be harmful to us, so AGAIN, a majority.

You obviously did not read what Taylor actually wrote. I am not a Heartland supporter, but let’s look at the actual statements of Mr. Taylor:

1. The title of his post: “Meteorologists are global warming skeptics”. TRUE. He never said a majority were.

2. “89% of AMS meteorologists believe global warming is happening, but only a minority (30%) is very worried about global warming”. BOTH true according to the poll.

3. “only a modest majority (59%) believe humans are the primary cause. More importantly, only 38% of respondents who believe global warming is occurring say it will be very harmful during the next 100 years.”, TRUE STATEMENT.

4. “53% of respondents believe there is conflict among AMS members regarding the topic of global warming. Only 33% believe there is no conflict. Another 15% were not sure.” ALL TRUE.

5. “Interestingly, only 26% of respondents said the conflict among AMS members is unproductive.” TRUE.

6. “a majority have Ph.D.s and fully 80% have a Ph.D. or Masters Degree”. TRUE statement.

I don’t know why everyone has their panties in a wad. I don’t see that Taylor is lying. Sure, he puts a good spin on it, but so what?

I’ve read with interest the angry statements by Heartland officials against Dr. Peter Gleick’s impersonation of a board member to obtain information from the Heartland Institute. Reading statements such as, “Gleick’s crime [emphasis added] was a serious one,” (1) Americans reasonably assume that you and the Heartland Institute abhor deception to obtain information for a public issue debate.

Help me understand, then, how your public position squares with the fact that the Heartland Institute did the same thing – to me – when it suited its interests.

To refresh the record: In December of 2007, I was in Bali for the United Nations climate treaty negotiations managing media for Greenpeace International. On Tuesday, December 4th, I received a call shortly after 4 a.m. from someone calling himself “John” and saying he was with a US environmental NGO. “John” asked about the UNFCCC media list and if he could get it from me. I declined not only because the call was strange, but because the list wasn’t public. Unbeknown to me, “John” was recording the call. Two days later a partial audio recording of that conversation was made public by the Heartland Institute in a press release. In it, Heartland Senior Fellow for Environment Policy James Taylor attacked (2) the United Nations for sharing its media list with NGOs. The recording has since been taken down from the Heartland website.

To recap, the Heartland Institute used a false organizational identity in order to obtain an internal document. It also surreptitiously recorded a telephone conversation (illegally, I believe, if it was done from your home state of Illinois) then posted it online to attack me in the same sort of privacy invasion you’ve been complaining about.

Please note that many, perhaps most, “meteorologists” are TV and radio “weathermen” with degrees in things like broadcast journalism and no science background to speak of, and hence, no understanding of the basic subject. They read what is presented to them. And yes, many of them are deniers.

Show me a poll of real meteorologists – the ones who studied meteorology (with the further caveat that meteorology is NOT climatology, so even they are the wrong people to be asking -the poll is kind of like asking a dentist about chest pains!), with all the math and physics that one needs to actually do meteorology, instead of just standing in front of a TV camera and teleprompter.

By the way, the American Meteorological Society has asked its “journalist” members to not pretend expertise on the science when they don’t have any. To no avail, unfortunately.

Unless the poll can be broken down as suggested above, it is entirely meaningless.

Why don’t you just say you don’t believe in global warming and never will for any reason? At least you’ll be honest.

Take a look an any major university and see if they offer degrees in “climatology”. Take a look at the education background for the major AGW players such as James Hansen, Kevin Trenberth, Michael Mann etc. No climatology degrees.

Kevin Trenberth’s (IPCC lead author) field of study: meteorology.

James Hansen’s field of study: math and physics.

Michael Mann’s field of study: math, physics, geology, geophysics.

Yes, meteorology is not climatology, but many so-called “climatologists” have an educational background in meteorology, and none that I can think of have a “climatology” degree.

Mr. physicsguy: I know many businessmen with no degree at all, but they have been doing their jobs for decades and are exceptional at them. If a meteorologist studies the effects of climate for twenty years, then I would call him a climatologist, wouldn’t you? Someone who reports the weather and has no contact with the study of climate would not so qualify. Studying climatology for years is in itself an education, is it not? Peoples qualifications do not end the day they graduate college.

Mr Taylor. This is really a nonsensical article. Meteorologists are not remotely qualified to discus climatology. You don’t ask podiatrists about coronary issues. Conduct a study of climatologists and then you will have something relevant to discuss. The term scientist is used here in a method that causes the fallacy of equivocation. Climatologists are scientists who are qualified to discuss global warming. Meteorologists are not so qualified, any more than scientists who study astronomy or neurology. Thus the points you make also fall into the category of the appeal to authority fallacy. Any poll of scientists other than climatologists is basically irrelevant. Do you have numbers on how climatologists poll? Your article fails to be relevant on two fronts.

Who even cares how many scientists believe it? All it takes is 1 study to prove them wrong!

The issue is the following:

Mann, Meehl, Trenberth, etc. believe that there are positive feedbacks in the climate system that will enhance co2 warming by 400%. I’ve been called a skeptic and denier because I think this figure is completely exaggerated and the feedbacks may even be net negative.